↓ Skip to main content

Bioresorbable scaffolds: a new paradigm in percutaneous coronary intervention

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bioresorbable scaffolds: a new paradigm in percutaneous coronary intervention
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12872-016-0207-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erhan Tenekecioglu, Vasim Farooq, Christos V. Bourantas, Rafael Cavalcante Silva, Yoshinobu Onuma, Mustafa Yılmaz, Patrick W. Serruys

Abstract

Numerous advances and innovative therapies have been introduced in interventional cardiology over the recent years, since the first introduction of balloon angioplasty, but bioresorbable scaffold is certainly one of the most exciting and attracting one. Despite the fact that the metallic drug-eluting stents have significantly diminished the re-stenosis ratio, they have considerable limitations including the hypersensitivity reaction to the polymer that can cause local inflammation, the risk of neo-atherosclerotic lesion formation which can lead to late stent failure as well as the fact that they may preclude surgical revascularization and distort vessel physiology. Bioresorbable scaffolds overcome these limitations as they have the ability to dissolve after providing temporary scaffolding which safeguards vessel patency. In this article we review the recent developments in the field and provide an overview of the devices and the evidence that support their efficacy in the treatment of CAD. Currently 3 devices are CE marked and in clinical use. Additional 24 companies are developing these kind of coronary devices. Most frequently used material is PLLA followed by magnesium.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Unknown 78 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 6 8%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 25%
Engineering 19 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Materials Science 6 8%
Chemistry 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 15 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,306,690
of 22,846,662 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#1,323
of 1,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#337,075
of 400,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#25
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,846,662 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,612 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 400,467 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.